Hussein Ibish’s Inconsistent Moral Compass

Check out the differences between Hussein Ibish’s stances on the Egyptian revolt v. the Libyan revolt.

Hussein Ibish On Egypt

Hussein Ibish On Libya
Under such volatile circumstances, commentators should be extremely careful. Act. Now.
There are times when commentary needs to fall silent for a moment and let events sort themselves out. Muammar al-Qaddafi’s bloodcurdling speech on Feb. 22 should force even skeptics of international intervention to think twice.

The situation in Egypt is simply too opaque, at least at the time of writing this article, for anything so glib as predictions.

It is becoming increasingly clear that these difficulties are outweighed by the risks of standing by and watching events unfold without taking any meaningful action.

There are times when commentary needs to fall silent for a moment and let events sort themselves out. Unlike other Western interventions in the region, humanitarian action in Libya would place the United States and the West on the side of the aspirations of millions of ordinary Arabs

Both Mubarak and Qadhafi have oppressed their people for decades. Both deserve to be overthrown in popular uprisings. So why this discrepancy in Ibish’s stance? The difference between the two is that Mubarak’s regime had a peace treaty with Israel and good relations with the US while Qadhafi doesn’t. As we’d previously noted,

Given Ibish’ role as the Washington concierge to PA officials, and his work for the American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP), the Washington public relations firm of the Israeli-sponsored, Western-funded, American-supervised collaborationist regime in occupied-Ramallah, he’s probably feeling a little uncomfortable watching the ground shake under the PA’s main ally in the Arab world, [Egypt].